Sun hits 1000 year peak of activity (or put a fork in AGW its done)

By Joliphant Posted in | Comments (156) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

From the BBC Crossposted at The Minority Report

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Pretty much wraps it up and puts a bow on it doesn't it. No surprise to the people that have been following this debate with an open mind. No surprise to scientists that kept their wits, skepticism and integrity. Not much of a surprise to historians either.

This may come as a surprise to the politicians that shouted the science is settled. (maybe not you don't really think politicians believe what they say ?) It may come as a surprise to the people that scheduled global warming conferences during the dead of winter. It almost certainly comes as a surprise to those that paid money for carbon credits.

What should conservatives take away from this ? That when someone is selling you salvation, best to be damn certain they represent the Deity. That when a politician promises to help you its best to keep your hand on your wallet. That bureaucrats see their work as interfering in your life.

Then again most conservatives already knew the above, and most liberals will never learn.

P.S. Are they going to start selling solar offsets ? Perhaps paying people to put mirrors on the equator ?

This is not so new - you've previously referenced it in January. I pointed then to a press release where the scientist, Solanki, was quoted thus (my emphasis):

Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

Even the BBC article you've linked says

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

So I think your wrap-up is premature.

May have just bent the tines on that fork.

So I won't waste time argueing things like methane records, or the fact that if we only have 650,000 years of ice cores from a four billion year old world, could it be because the earth's natural state is not to have a polar cap? But I digress.

Discounting one line regarding tableware and package decorations, the author's point (and one shared by some in the scientific community) appears to me to be that politicians aren't pushing this agenda to resolve the issue of climate change. They are pushing this agenda to fleece your pocket.

I am certain you can counter any detail the author presents, but in doing so you make the author's point. The matter isn't settled. Unless you plan to excommunicate anyone that doesn't agree with you.

What degree man has an effect on climate change, or more importantly what capability he has to prevent climate change is highly speculative.

But that hasn't stopped Global Warming from becoming a new religion. Seeing your reaction to anyone that questions your faith in global warming dogma reminds me of the Radical Islamic's reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed.

Like other religions, the religion of Global Warming has prophets, messiahs, hell on earth, fear of punishment for falling from grace, everlasting paradise vs self destruction, and of course industrious people who are perfectly willing to make a living out of offering you redemption.

The whole climate change industry reminds me of the religious state of the middle ages. A time when an industry sprang up to extort money from people who felt guilt and feared some far off retribution for having lived life as they did, that is, at the expense of others.

RedStaters do not need to get hung up in "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type arguements regarding global warming. Look at the big picture. Who is making money out of this?

Next time you hear a politician, scientist, or actor ask for your support to prevent climate change, reverse global warming, reduce green house gases. Remember this, John Adams ran on a campaign to reduce the rising crime rate.

In over two hundred years it is impossible to fathom the effort, money and time that has been spent by every politician promising to work to stem the rising crime.

Criminals still commit crimes, and politicians still make a living telling you how they are going to solve the problem.

Now these same politicians, actors, and numerous other sycophants want to tell you (for a small contribution) waht you can do to prevent climate change.

Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum

that was quite possible the best response I have ever seen about the subject.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The cry of bandits through the ages: "Your money or your life."

to be a GW expert, but I do try to cite experts. I won't try to respond to your suggestion that I am under the influence of some occult belief - to continue your medieval analogy, it only makes it worse if you show that you can swim. And I can't answer for the fallibility of politicians.

The best I can do is to try to put in perspective the relation of AGW to the natural world effects. As far as the effects of the sun go, Solanki does it well himself, on his excellent website, which is linked from the 2004 BBC article cited in the OP.

Yes, there have been variations of climate in the past, and there would be variations going on now, regardless of human influence. But we know we've had many centuries free of drastic change, and if you look at both the record and the known timescales of the change processes., we would normally not expect any drastic change in the coming few centuries. In that livable environment, something has happened that certainly hasn't happened on Earth before - a complex interdependent community of six billion humans, dependent on advanced agriculture. Maybe that has survived much hotter conditions way back in the past, but that doesn't mean that our civilisation can survive them now.

The core of the AGW argument is expressed in the first part of the IPCC summary released in February. It doesn't deny that there have been solar effects and other sources of natural variation. It doesn't rely on reasoning from the historical record. Instead it focuses on what we know we are doing that has never been done before (burning huge amounts of fossil carbon, and creating other GHG) and the known consequences of that, in terms of absorbing outgoing radiation and creating a quantifiable heat imbalance. That effective heat inflow will increase as we continue to emit GHG. We don't know exactly what the consequences will be, but we have to expect very significant warming.

typo by pliny

I said "Maybe that has survived" - I meant "Maybe life has survived"

Much like a politician you answer the question you wanted asked, not the one thats actually important.

Nobody questions that changing the atmosphere doesn't change the environment. The atmosphere being a large part of the environment this is a tautological. Its also the strawman that all AGW proponents throw up in the skeptics faces.

The question is how much is coming from what. When you are talking about .6 degrees in 120 years nad .4 degrees in 140 years you are talking about little more than needle twitches on the gage. When you go further you still have to ask of what is coming from CO2, you further have to nail it down to mankind's contribution. Once you have determined what man's contribution is you have to ask is it a good or bad thing ? If you had then determined it was actually harmful you would need to ask which is the cheapest way to deal with it ?

The AGW people show little to no sign of introspection on the topic.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

i thought it was wrapped up, bow and all. unless you were engaging in rhetoric just to get pliny's goat, which makes all this strawman talk more that a bit ironic...

Whats the effect of its methane output on climate ? And why would I want a goat in Australia ? If I get it will he ship it to me ?

Kidding aside, yes it is tied up in a bow. The Idea that the primary contributor to the warming of the earth is co2 is dead. What controls our climate and how they interrelate is a great question that may take quite a while to investigate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but it's getting late here. I need sleep (and then coffee) before I can tackle your philosophical question below.

you do have a leg up in seeing what tomorrow holds.

And don't forget to snap up some soon-to-be beach property in Alice Springs. GW is not all bad, you know. :>)

All from AGW. I also like the way its killing off the great barrier reef by making the water warmer.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

in Ranongga for you. It's a steal!

You say that the idea that CO2 causes GW is dead, and I have heard that in many places and have argued it based on my own knowledge of the theory of GW, but now I'm in a debate with someone who knows more about AGW than I do and I need some support for the CO2 bit. No links have been posted on RS that support this, so far as I know. Do you have some I can get?

There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.

It hasn't been updated lately because I can't access it anymore.


______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

< / pavlovian response >
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

A good source of the science behind the death of CO2 as the culprit of global warming was explained in the documentary on British channel 4. It is called "The Global Warming Swindle". It is worth the watch and puts everything in perspective.

It use to be on YouTube, but I think they took it down. You can check Google Video too. I know it was still up there this weekend. If it hasn't been taken down for copyright reasons, go get it and down load it. It may help you.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

that I tend to talk about heat fluxes, recent, present and future, because that is what we really know about ( and what is really important in driving climate), and I tend to get asked a lot about past temperatures. I won't haggle here about your numbers (to save time), but the temperature rise in the last century is steep but so far not huge, and Solanki's overall view on its cause seems not unreasonable. But the GHG heat flux is large and rising, and that says where we are going. And it can be quantitatively attributed, as the IPCC summary shows.

On whether its a bad thing, and what to do, I tried to put my position recently here.

Oh man I'm not up to philosophical question before coffee. What we do know is that the method of determining global temperature and CO2 concentration has changed over time. What we can be fairly assured of is that the elements that determine our climate have changed over time. Because the climate is a dynamic non linear system at any given point in time what you may think as the important factor may actually be a very minor one.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

now who say the planet's temperature has actually not risen at all since 1998.

On the news 2 days ago, they were talking about snow in Atlanta. My brother called me from mid-Texas about the same time and told me it was snowing where he lived, and that they were predicting the overall coldest winter on record.

When people point out that there really ought to be 'warming' to go along with the AGW, Greeners respond that any variation in climate is ultimately the Earth reacting to the AGW (hence the trend lately to call it 'climate change', rather than warming), so it doesn't matter that overall ice mass in increasing in Antarctica (even if it decreasing on one peninsula)..... it's still the fault of man for producing too much CO2.

I just delivered supplies to my southern Colorado farm last week. There was snow on the ground, and the temp dropped to 17 degrees F in the evening. I've owned that farm for 30 years, and this is the FIRST time I've had this kind of snow cover this late in the year. When's the da*ned warming going to actually start????

is pretty much a thing of the past. People have little or no contact with parents and grandparents and move from place to place so frequently that they never get any intimate knowledge of a place. We also tend to cluster with people in our demographic cluster, so there is no knowledge transfer from older to younger people.

Wrt, Atlanta, someone with long experience in the Southeast would know that the SE is notorious for late winter, early spring snow or ice storms; the odds of a white Christmas down there are infinitesimal, but the odds of a white 25th of March are pretty good. I remember a March dump in the early seventies that put a foot of snow on the ground well down into the coastal plain. Atlanta is a really, really entertaining place with a foot of snow on the ground.

When I was a kid and we were still farming, we had two or three generations of memory and handed down experience about what to expect from the weather; it is pretty important to farmers. Today almost nobody has a clue how to predict weather from common observable phenomena and few have more than a few years experience with where they live. Consequently, everything is unpredictable and new and they are suckers for whatever the weather channel and the climate hucksters are putting out.

In Vino Veritas

I did not, however, mean to infer that the climate is getting colder, and apologize if that was the message you got in my post. What I did mean to infer, is that it doesn't seem to me to be getting any warmer either. There is going to be a range of temperatures and precipitation levels over time for any given location in the country.

The guys selling AGW come in basically two flavors; reasonable and unreasonable. The reasonable ones say they are mostly convinced about AGW, but still leave room for some adjustment in their modelling, and admit there probably really isn't anything anyone can do about it, and maybe shouldn't do anything about it anyway.

The unreasonable ones want us all to completely change our lifestyles and essentially turn over the world's economies to them so they can save us. They're telling us in strident terms that if we don't start doing something radical right now, we're going to hit the point of no return in short order and kill the planet and ourselves and eventually all life on Earth in the process. And it has already gotten so bad that we're right on the verge of total collapse and have to act NOW.

My issue with observing local climate goes to addressing the later group. If the change was going to be so drastic that there actually could be some kind of major threat, I have to believe I personally would have seen some evidence of it in the past thirty years. I have not.

Global warming is supposed to affect the planet most in the latitudes further away from the equator and in winter months. The weather varies more at my CO property than my CA property, so I'll address what I've observed there by way of evaluating how I'm being impacted. I gotta tell you, I haven't seen any indication of any kind of change of any note to speak of. Some winters are still mild, some are severe.

Snow pack is up in the mountains one year, down the next. Three years ago it was 66% of annual average where my farm is, and everybody locally was screaming it was proof of global warming. Then for two years it was right at average. This year, it's at 166%. Next year, it could be at 66% again. It's all within the range of how snow has accumulated in that area for the past 100 years that they know of , AND IT IS NOT CHANGING.

Ice core samples say the planet varies as to average temperature a significant amount over time.

Now there's a series of studies and climate-change models that say we need to start massive logging programs in Northern climes, because tropical forests use massive amounts of CO2 and cool the planet, but Northern forests aborb more heat than they compensate for in CO2 usage, and therefore are producing a net gain in heating the planet by existing.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_5633118

I really suspect the most competent climatologist in the world probably doesn't know 10% of what he needs to know to accurately model climate and climate change. Yet, they'll spend like drunken sailors (your money, of course) to fix non-existent problems.

They've got a bill going forward in CA now that will add as much as $2500.00 to the cost of a new gas guzzler, and rebate up to that amount to people buying eco-friendly cars. Sort of a gas mileage cap and trade program. Of course, fighting global warming is the justification.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_5633020

Since I can't pull a stock trailor with a prius, so I'm just going to be screwed. Only I'm not. I'm going to move out of CA completely instead. I already pay more for a truck here than almost anywhere else in the country for a variety of reasons. With this legislation, they've just convinced me to not give another penny to the CA automobile economy or the DMV. I suspect I won't be the only one.

that you said, just a general observation. We had a couple of just magnificent summers in a row until last year when it was rainy and cold all summer and we set a new all time record snowfall this year. I want Global Warming back!

In Vino Veritas

One chilly afternoon, about 8 years ago, my Aunt (in the Minneapolis, MN area) had a Global Warming activist visit her house to plead the cause and shake her down for a donation.

As she tells it, he arrived at her door , wrapped in a jacket and shivering and proceeded to tell her about the coming devastation. He went on to ask for her support in driving those evil companies out of business who would dare to pump out the evil CO2 and destroy the world.

She takes one look and asks him what month it was.

His reply "It's July".

She says to him: "It's July. You're wearing a coat, you're cold and you're worried about Global Warming?"

As she shut the door on him, she says "You're an idiot".

I'm not sure who is in this school saying no rise since 1998, which was an exceptionally hot year. But here is NASA:

The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.

Otherwise it came in lower than 98
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

have anything in common?

When I studied physics and astronomy, flux refered to the incident amount of radiation hitting a particular area. Which would seem to put us back to talking about sunspots and black bodies, neither of which have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As I understand the claims of CO2 theory, CO2 abosrbs one frequency of radiation, and re-emits it at another which is subject to being reflected back to earth instead of radiating back out into space. But this just means there will be a delay in the eventual cooling, not that the earth will heat up. When the radiation is reflected back to the surface, it will be picked up by non-CO2 objects which will radiate at different frequencies than the CO2, and thus start the cooling process again. You can't understand basic black-body theory without knowing AGW is a crock.

would be great, if only the thing would work. But I don't think your interpretation of CO2 and radiation is quite right. It is the Earth's surface which absorbs high frequency radiation and emits low frequency (thermal). The CO2 in the air absorbs some of the latter, so extra CO2 creates an in-out flux imbalance. Eventually, the incoming and outgoing fluxes have to come back into balance; the thermal radiation, and hence surface temperature (black-body theory), has to rise. There is an explanatory graphic here.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are all scientists so functionally illiterate that they can't string together a simple declarative sentence?

The quote at the end is a classic illustration of the error that correlation proves causation.

BTW, I enjoyed a very chilly Easter here in Texas with my tomato plant refugees, which I had to bring indoors on Thursday because of an unusual cold spell, which is still here six days later. Oh, well, time to go to work. Must water the plants, which are still indoors, and turn down the heat.

The last quote was written not by a research scientist, but by Dr David Whitehouse, BBC News Online science editor. I think he was trying to paraphrase the press release. And he's not saying that correlation proves causation; he's saying that a proposed cause (recent solar) fails for want of correlation.

"This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels."

Sounds like emissions cause GW to me. We Yanks like plain talk.

EVERYONE knows that the earth first warmed when exposed to the radiance of Bill Clinton, the earth was green, the birds sang in the trees and everyone was happy in Eden.

And then the Evil Cheney appeared, introducing cars and power plants and pollution in Paradise, which is why we live East of Eden now.

Just like the homeless problem in 1981, the very week that Ronald Reagan was elected!

Maybe if the country elects a centrist Dem, AGW will go away too, just like the homeless problem disappeared in 1993!

_______________________

When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

/i i /i /em em /em.

--


See the Academy

I've always admired that comeback in your signature, but I believe it was a response by John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich.

Here is sit this fine Tuesday - April 9th, 2007, and as I look out my window it is snowing fairly heavy. It is suppose to keep snowing until 2 PM or so this afternoon. The radar image confirms this forecast. This is on the heels of 10 inches of snow we got last week. It has only got above freezing once in the last 10 days too, and that was only for about 2 or 3 hours.

Yup, it is all Global Warming's fault!

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

How is that for a "fictional" straw man?

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

It is Tuesday - April 10th

I had a long weekend and I am out of wack with my calendar today.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

was drowned, must have been the SUV's that did it.

Considering that CO2, one villain, causes G W and then to connect it to humans is to ignore the very small percentage of CO2 that humans cause. Of Roughly 186 billion tons of CO2 generated each year about 6 billion is caused by humans.

Any comparison to where we were in 1980 or thereabouts re temperatures is ludicrous, 27 years in the history of the planet?? And it was about that time that the media began to switch from global cooling terror scenarios to the global warming variety. May we now expect another shift, to global temperature stasis and inventive terrors sufficient to keep activists awake at night while science[ some] start a rewrite and commence looking for new grants.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, every American is therefore a polluter and subject to EPA sanctions. It's not hard to imagine where this will take us.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

My breathing and farting is now regulated and I can get fined for passing an SBD or breathing? Hopefully not at the same time.....

LOL ;-)

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

As our resident AGW high priest and referencing the comments about reradiation above. I have a question for you. You have stated in earlier posts that the direct component of solar radiation is about 2 watts/ meter squared and the indirect (so called "greenhouse effect") component is about 2.5 watt / meter squared ( forgive me if I have misquoted you but you get the idea). As CO2 is considered a minor greenhouse gas, what is the watt/meter squared contribution to the total heating of the earth's surface on a ppm basis of carbon dioxide. I would think this would be a fundamental factual underpinning for conducting the argument in favor of AGW. However, I have been unable to find that information anywhere--and no Pliny you cannot simply divide the watts/meter squared by the concentration of CO2 even you should know it is non linear!
Our sun is not unique in the galaxy, it is a variable star. That means the solar energy output is variable over time. Since paleoclimatologists assure us that the climate has varied over time and those variances seem to coincide with the changes in the solar constant would it not seem proven that the SUN is the driving force in the constant heating and cooling not only of Earth but also in the other planets in our solar system? Mars is heating, are too many Martians sailing their gas guzzeling yachts on those Martian canals?

The average forcing of CO2 is usually thought of in terms of a doubling of CO2. Where double (say from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) the CO2 results in about 4 W/m2 or about 3 deg. C.

According to the latest IPCC report, current atmospheric levels have anthropogenic CO2 at 1.66 W/m2 forcing while the next largest is methane at 0.48 W/m2.

The sun is the driver of course, and CO2 is the amplifier - the difference from the past is that we are adding more amplification.

And maybe something else is happening on Mars. If the sun is heating Mars and the Earth why aren't all planets warming? Why is Earth's stratosphere cooling?

"would it not seem proven that the SUN is the driving force in the constant heating and cooling not only of Earth but also in the other planets in our solar system"

All we can prove logically is that there is at least a remarkable coincidence!

You have to look at it from a quantum physics point of view. If we weren't here to observe it all and raise taxes, blackmail industry, or install cap and trade programs accordingly.... would any of this GW actually be happening? Without the observer, who in the observing changes the nature/energy-state of the observed (thank you Doctor Heisenberg), would it make any difference at all? Of course not!

And since we are observing the planet around us and therefore are changing all sorts of things in the observing, this whole global warming thing must, in fact, be anthropogenic. If not for us observers generating the need, would we even know how to spell Kyoto?

So we might as well just get used to the idea and start fishing deep into our pockets.

"God made all men. It was Sam Colt made 'em equal" - Matthew Quiggley

and temperature measurement? - don't quit your day job.

I don't have much to add to what PJ has said. I've been quoting 2 W/m2 as the manmade GHG forcing component as a rough guide - as PJ says, the IPCC estimate is 1.6 for CO2 and a few more bits for other gases. The total is more than 2 but the error limits are significant, so 2 is a reasonable short version.

The TAR has this discussion of CO2 forcing. It doesn't give a figure per ppm, but it does give two reference points - the current increase of about 120 ppm (about 40%) since pre-industrial gives 1.46 (the 2001 TAR figure), and doubling would give between 3.5 and 4.1. I haven't checked that these are the exact figures they are using, but the relation is not too far from linear in this range.

There is a recent post here which has a "simplified" model, which is still fairly mathematical.

Solar variation is a likely driver of past changes, through terrestrial feedbacks from CO2 and water. People have tended to focus on variation through orbital variation, which can be calculated, and this seems to work reasonably for ice ages. Really not much is known about paleo-history of the solar constant.

A main proponent of the dominant effect of solar variation in the past is Solanki. However, as he says, what we have now is something different.

Come on Joli - sunspots over and over again - it's really smacking of desperation. Funny how your own link even says that they're not responsible for the current warming.

But why rely on an article, how about looking at the data from Solanki's lab. An eleven year sunspot cycle over the last 30+ years with no growing trend - as stated in your article - meanwhile the Earth's temp increased ~0.5 deg. C. The year 2005 was a low point in the solar cycle and yet the warmest year on record. How do you explain this using your theory? How come you never answer these most basic of questions?

Skeptics are fond of saying causation does not equal causation. But there's a corollary to that - causation usually suggests correlation (or anti-correlation). There is no correlation - what does that mean?

The IPCC is actually putting out new reports with relevant and new data - how about posting those? Or why not join Newt Gingrich in accepting the science? The longer you keep it up, the sillier you look.

Skeptics are fond of saying causation does not equal causation. But there's a corollary to that - causation usually suggests correlation (or anti-correlation). There is no correlation - what does that mean?

No, the statement is "correllation does not equal causation." Basically, it means that just because two things happen to match, it does not prove that they are related. There could be an incredibly strong correllation between people who watch Desperate Housewives and who buy Ferarri, but that does not mean one is affecting the other, or is even related to the other.

By the way, Newt is a politician. He's a very smart man. He knows that accepting the pseudo-science offered by global warming "experts" can help get him elected in a general election, or at least a VP nod since he'll be seen as "moderate." His acceptance does not equate to proof of the theory.

No, I'm afraid it is not we who look silly. Oh, I am certain we seem silly to you. However, delving into the data shows a complete lack of two things: 1) There is no agreement between scientists on the cause of global warming, only that it is happening. 2) There has never, ever been a double-blind study on the phenomnon to determine its root cause. This means the scientists know where the money comes from and write their abstract and the report to suit, knowing that few will ever parse the data itself. Your claim that the matter is settled in the absence of real proof makes you look silly.

I suggest you read up on Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism was part of a Soviet political campaign against the idea of genetics. It was science adopted for political reasons in the absence of real proof. Those who supported it were rewarded while its detractors were sent to the gulag.

The principal action taken in real life in support of Lysenkoism was the adoption of modified crop seed that was supposed to be hardier due to processes enacted upon it, rather than its genetic traits. The result was lost crops and millions of deaths due to starvation. Even following this, some Russian scientists cling to the ideals of Lysenkoism while the majority of their colleagues adopt the science of genetics.

In the absence of double-blind studies and the unbiased data that results from real science, I am forced to the conclusion that NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON.

Period.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

The logical statement is,

Causation => Correlation

As often stated, this does not mean that,

Correlation => Causation

But it _does_ imply that,

No Correlation => No Causation

So, while correlation can not prove causation, a lack of correlation can prove a lack of causation.

And double blind tests? This isn't a psychology experiment. The best argument of anti-AGW lobbyists is that the money is driving the science. I simply suggest: science has been, is, and will be, the best method we have to determine truth about the world. My evidence, empirical, is your way of life, built at every step by science.

So ... double blind studies only work in psychology, huh?

Interesting.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

So far every model used to predict climate change has been wrong. And the best argument that Anti AGW people have has nothing to do with money. Its the Historical record which remains either completely ignored by the AGW people or attempted erasure with falsified data. See Mann Hockey stick forgery. Google is your friend.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

every model to predict climate change wrong? According to whom? Let's see in 2002, the Hadley model had 90% correlation - better than the models we use to design airplanes that you fly in. How does that compare to the correlation of your sunspot model - don't forget to include data from the last 20 years, that you strangely leave out every time.

Right the old hockey stick erased some data - been talking to McIntyre again? Same old same ole...Prove it - how about using google to find that data - I've given it to you before. Or how about the 9 other independent studies in the latest IPCC TAR that pretty much support the conclusion of that study. Or how about the National Academies of Sciences report - are they all wrong?

Better to remain silent and be thought an Idiot
Than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You should take that advice. Especially you have just shown you are willing to distort your own field or don't properly understand it.

The mechanical models for aircraft and the stress interactions are old well proven and in many cases have 3 or 4 nines of accuracy. The combustion models are all exceptional and considerably better than 90%. The models of the electrical systems are so insanely accurate it beggars the imagination. (thats why we can get away with 5% tolerance on electrical parts and have everything work perfectly). The navigation models are once again insanely accurate.

So you assert that because the models of turbulent airflow aren't accurate the overall model of the aircraft is inaccurate ? This when in commercial aircraft most of the flow is laminar, Newtonian and well modeled ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777


Managing Editor

for the easy cases (i.e. electrical), but now try doing an unsteady maneuver or model a high lift system. Laminar? We wish. How about the acoustics of a system (some of what I do) - I'd be happy with 90%. Then try a helicopter. Why do you think passenger aircraft have safety factors on the order of 2? Even electrical systems have to be fully redundant - what does that say about confidence levels?

Stress interactions with 3 or 4 nines of accuracy - hah!!! Someone sold you a load of something there. Maybe in the computer science world but not mine. I'll send you a paper.

They had safety factors on the order of 90. Go figure. Somehow much of the required safety factors in aircraft have to do with liability and the perception of Airlines and Aircraft manufacturers as deep pockets.

Unstable maneuver happens how often during a flight, and for what percentage ? So you are arguing that what percent of the operating time and what percent of the overall is determining ?

As for the stress, shoot me your address I'll shoot you copies of some of the DARPA work that generated materials science.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

percentages like landing and take-off are very unsteady. Try predicting the flow around a landing gear or just the drag - which determines the landing distance - pretty important.

I'm sure your paper will show impressive correlations (you can contact me from my user info can't you). Unfortunately, aircraft manufacturers can't afford to use one-off DARPA-like designs or materials.

A 10 percent error on landing will wreck a plane. Currently computers regularly land aircraft including jets. QED you stand refuted again.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

seriously Joli you have no idea what your talking about - here's a hint: runways are always longer than landing lengths.

But instead of listening to this flailing threadjacking of your own diary, answer me this - why is the Earth's stratosphere cooling is the sun is getting hotter? That should shut you down - unless you'd care to answer, of course.

again with you're/your - I really have to get my keyboard fixed...

Then you compound it.

Now your approach to debate is to shut down your opponents.
I believe you have once again made my point for me.

You don't even understand the claims you are trying to assert. Its pathetic. If there were only two factors at play in the atmosphere your question might have some merit.

Hears a heads up, Johnny Cochrane is calling he wants his closing argument back.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

you're not going to answer the question?

Please read this for a discussion of skepticism of the "hockey stick graph".

-jb

boy - shot myself in the foot there - of course I meant "correlation does not equal causation". Last time I checked causation always equals causation, so I probably don't need to say it. And how exactly would you do a double blind study in climatology? Let's see - I'll put a certain amount of gas into the atmosphere and you have to guess what it is? In order to do double blinds you have to have control over the inputs - good luck.

And since you have delved into the data - perhaps you could share where scientists don't agree except for a precious handful - I bet I can predict who your scientists are.

Climatology = Lysenkoism - that's great - but a stretch don't you think. Here's a thought, pick one pillar of the many threads of scientific evidence of AGW and prove that it's incorrect. Or prove that there's another cause for the observed warming.

I could start our usual roundabout, where you not only ignore any link or fact from me but even ignore your own posts and calculations. I have neither time nor energy so I will just take a part your post and leave you with whatever response you wish to make. BTW I am very impressed with the above, not many people are able to ignore what they write as they write it.

2005 was the low point in an eleven year cycle that is at a millenium peak. Thus your statement while true is unconnected and not relevant. You need to show that the Solar constant was less in that year than in a prior year.

Causation produces correlation indeed. Thats why Solar activity correlates to temperature fluctuation better than CO2 measurement. As I have pointed out in the past. You don't need to keep inventing new things when you correlate to the sun. The mid century temperature dip is a prime example. This is why when we see constantly increasing CO2 we don't see constantly increasing temperature.

But to show you I'm not a nasty guy. Go have a carbon credit wafer and a wine of energy offset communion on me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

not many people are able to ignore what they write as they write it.

doublespeak and doublethink come to mind...I think that is what Orwell called that...

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

you won't talk to me anymore - oh well. Guess I'll just be posting rebuttals for everyone else.

So, let's have a long look at the data for solar correlation after 1960 - how does it look? It's not looking so good to me - how about you? Is it really better than the CO2 correlation - golly I just don't see it.

If solar activity increased the last 60 years why did temperatures decrease between 1950 and 1970 as you point out? The scientific argument is aerosol concentration was high - as we've discussed many times - hence the loss of CO2 correlation.

How come your theory doesn't hold up during this time? That's the problem with hanging on only one mechanism isn't it? It only works when it works and presently it's not working.

How could the stratosphere be cooling if the sun is warming? You love to avoid that one don't you?

Use one year.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and avoiding the question....nice.

The BBC article notes that sunspot activity is "more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years". So while 2005 may be a low point in an 11 year cycle it can still be near a high point in the last 1000 years.

What does this have to do with boiling water? If you boil water on a stove you turn the heat as high as it will go and wait for the water to boil. The heat remains constant while the water gets hotter and hotter. Just as the sun is at or near it's maximum and the earth is getting warmer and warmer. Seems simple enough, you don't need to look for other explanations (Occam's razor).

Face it, man made global warming is about politics and economics, not science. If you don't understand why water boils you certainly won't understand climate change.

Since you are big into theory how about examining this statement "0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity" and explain to us how impacting such a small number is going to effect climate. 9source:http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

once the water boils and reaches equilibrium - does the temperature keep rising? Exactly, which is why that's a bad analogy.

Read the study again - Solanki says that the increase in sunsopt activity may account for warming at the first half of the 20th century but is not enough to account for warming in the last 20-30 years - enough heat has not been added - to go back to your analogy, the water won't boil, the burner would have to be hotter.

Since you are big into theory how about examining this statement "0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity" and explain to us how impacting such a small number is going to effect climate.

OK, to begin with that calculation relies on the fact that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas by volume (really it's closer to 90% - but let's go with it)- which of course is very misleading, because the volume is different than is radiative absorption.

In terms of greenhouse effect, water vapor is most important at about 36%, clouds are 14% and next is CO2 at 12% - so the number you have listed is just plain incorrect. The fact that water vapor in the atmosphere has only increased slightly in the 100 years (because of rising temps) while CO2 has gone up 30% means that the CO2 effect will dominate.

Citing wiki?

That's hardly what I'd call a reputable source...

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

such as their recent recruitment of 1000 new fact-checking "enforcers," GW is certainly a gray area where too many people insist on KnownFacts and such.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I thought my water analogy was pretty creative, but then that's just me.

You seem to be suggesting that the sun has warmed the earth as much as possible so there has to be another explanation, even if we have had 1000 years of maximum solar activity.

Oddly enough, if you look at climate history for the last 2 billion years you discover that we are actually quite cool. It seems that for most of the last 2 billion years the earth has averaged about 22°C which is significantly warmer than our current 14°C (my guesstimate). View a graph here

So I ask why are we getting all hyped about warming when it's historically cool? My best guess is there isn't any money in it if there isn't a problem so let's invent a problem, hype it, propose a solution and get rich. I think I just quoted the Al Gore plan.

I said it was a bad analogy. The sun could warm the Earth if it's power increased significantly - but it hasn't.

Of course, humanity will survive climate change that's not the point even if it were 114 deg. warmer - but it's going to be expensive. More expensive than fixing the problem.

I'm a little confused about how this relates to the analogy... but this is what happens to water that is boiling - if changes state...in other words, it changes from liquid in the pot to gas (water vapor) which typically escapes the pot, during this process the temperature remains constant. However, if the pot is sealed so that the vapor cannot escape, and the burner continues to supply heat, once all the water has been converted into vapor, the temperature will once again rise...until it reaches the point where the gas begins to change to a plasma...

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

I didn't understand the analogy either.

which I failed to describe sufficiently, was that as the water heats towards boiling and with no increase in output from the burner we do not look for another source of heat to figure out why the temperature of the water is still increasing. The water is absorbing the energy and storing it as heat.

Similarly the earth absorbs energy from the sun and the earth's temperature rises accordingly. We are nowhere near the boiling point since we are well below the geologic time frame average.

It seems odd that when other planets in our solar system, such as Mars, are experiencing glacial melting it can be accepted that solar activity is responsible but the same cannot possibly be true for earth.

The good news from my perspective is that all it will cost is money to discover that there really isn't a problem and that the planet will survive quite nicely, thank you very much, in spite of the global warming alarmists.

since you brought up Mars - why aren't ALL the planets warming?

The planet and we will survive, but change is expensive.

How long have we been able to measure the temperature on other planets, and to what precision?

Do we really know that other planets have not been warming? You seem to think that we know that they are not; what's your evidence?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

going to claim that planets like Mars are warming, then you should probably be able to tell if others are. From what I've read many scientists don't believe Mars is warming either, but rather experiencing regional changes.

But its just been shown to be warming globally. Currently attributed to changes in albedo.

The truly interesting thing though is not the current purported cause. Rather its the way all the AGW people circled the wagons to refute that it was at all.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and that - I posted the link to that study above - so I see you actually do pay attention to recent science. Although nobody has measurements that it is truly global temp change. There's still debate on Mars.

But, thanks for confirming it's not the sun.

Everyone needs one in an uncertain world.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

As we've seen the the sun's output has decreased over the last 6 years - the period of observed melting at southern (not northern) pole of Mars - how does that work?

It must be tough having an involuntary reflex to spout nonsense.

Lets take this in teeny tiny bits. The sun is cyclically more active than it has been in a millennium. The next cycle is predicted to be even more active than this one. So we have had a decline from the peak of a 1000 years.

You haven't shown that this decline is enough to cause the refreezing of the poles, or that it is lower than when they started to melt.

Care to go back to how there are no accurate models for aircraft behavior ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

more active in the last millennium over the last 60 years - why did the southern solar cap only start melting 6 years ago? Why has the northern cap remained unchanged?

Why is the Earth's stratosphere cooling? Yes, I'm going to repeat this question until you give an answer.

There's a takedown of these planet warming arguments in a recent Nature article by Oliver Morton. It is subscription only, but you can read the salient bits here. For me, the key issue is that the argument that other planets are warming only has relevance if you think there is a common factor, which can only be the sun. And this comes back to our now very good observations of what the sun is putting out, and to Solanki.

Except for data testing. But out of the planets we are observing it seems to be happening to, too many of them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Ignoring entirely the accuracy of your numbers, the fundamental flaw in your .117% statement is the following.

When talking about global warming, you are talking about a change in temperature. And when talking about changes, you must look at the changes of what affects temperature.

There is a lot of water vapor, and it has a large effect on the greenhouse effect, that is already reflected in the preexisting temperature of the earth. But... the level of water vapor isn't changing!* So, its base level does not matter in a discussion about the current changes in earth's temperature.

The reason people believe CO2 is driving our current climate change is this. The _change_ in CO2 in the past 30 years accounts very well for the _change_ in temperature of the past 30 years.

-jb

* To clarify for those more interested in details, the change in water vapor as measured by radiative absorption is small compared to the change in CO2 (measured the same way). This is what is means by the level of water vapor isn't changing.

there was apparently a higher amount of water vapor in the air, tropical conditions throughout a much larger area than we see today and most probably a higher atmospheric density than we have today if you consider what large animals they were. Any possible future scenario caused by global warming will by no means be uninhabitable.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"The magnitude of the Sun’s influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the
employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the
solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant.
In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating
caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux."

This is from the very same scientist who is cited in that BBC article. The effect of the sun's effect on the rise of temperature on earth has been studied by many others with similar conclusions. Here is a PDF of his article:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf

If its not the Radiative portion of the sun it must be CO2 ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The point is that many wrongfully claim that scientists have found the Sun's rise in activity to be the sole cause for global warming. This is simply not true. In fact, I have yet to find ONE article that claims that to be the case. Virtually every artcle I've looked at does conclude that the Sun's activity has some effect on the Earth's climate, and there is of course no surpise to that. However, it cannot fully explain the recent (post 1850) rise in global temperatures. If you can point me to something, please do so.

I would have a hard time doing that. What I do claim is that the sun offers better predictive power in predicting temperature change than CO2 levels. If you take a look at any of the graphs of CO2 level versus average temperature there is precious little correlation.

Solar cycle length and its related variable activity are much more correlated to temperature. There is also the related matter of the solar magnetic field which has a not well understood effect on earths climate.

I don't claim to have answers, just some very pointed questions. The AGW people make the claim of having answers despite the fact that their predictions keep coming up short.

If climate change is indeed caused by man, we need to know exactly what the cause is, how it interrelates with factors out of our control, what we can do to change things, and what the consequences will be. All the above are overlooked in the insanity of cut carbon use now !!!!.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Ok, unless you have done the predictive calculations yourself, please show me someone who did. "If you look at the graphs..." is not how it's done.

Here is again another article by that Solanki guy:

Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/jasr6658_online.pdf

The authors actually SHOW that the Sun's contributions to the recent increase in warming are NOT statistically significant. Same results as many other studies on that topic.

Again, you make the claim that Solar cycles can be used to predict climate. Well, duh, of course if the Sun heats up, so will the Earth and vice versa. You're right so far. Than you make the claim that this "puts a fork in AGW". And that's where you're wrong. If you find me ONE article that places the Sun's rise in activity as the majority contributor to the recent global warming, then PLEASE send it to me. Else, you should retract your "fork in AGW" claim.

Want to talk about what has the better correlation ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I was always good at reading graphs in physics class...me thinks the derivatives of the blue and red squiggly lines match each other more often than they match the derivative of the green line...like between 1940 and 1980 especially...

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

why do these graphs end at 1985 (actually 1970 since the two points are incorrect)? What does it look like after then? Pretty poor correlation. I think you should move on to cosmic rays, Joli this one's DOA.

There is a sharp rise in CO2 on the chart from 1950-1980, while temperature anomalies went down during most of that period.

as I posted above... that's the leading theory.

Sample sets of the data. One going from the 60's to the 90's and now a sample set that is post 1985.

Out of a 140 year sample you keep slicing and dicing to make your point. Any reasonable person would question why it was necessary to look through a pinhole.

As to why it ends at 1985, probably because thats when the authors data set ended.

As to the points being wrong with the number of times the CRU sets have been adjusted retroactively to conform to the prevalent hypothesis, pardon me if I take that with salt.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

your applying to your data after 1985 (actually 1970)? Your right, the data ends in 1985 because the paper that the data comes from was published in 1991. Not exactly cutting edge stuff. The data I've shown, shows your data plus the data for the last 30 years where the correlation is no longer existent.

Which is why the authors of that paper published a correction in 2000 that said:

"The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."

time to update your reference list - some more science has been done in the last 16 years.

Its not this so out of a near infinite field of possibilities it must be CO2 generated warming ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

right - I challenge you to name the top 20. Hint: the IPCC does this. I think we can rule out space aliens with microwave guns... or is that the subject of your next diary?

First of all, I don't know why this is treated as breaking news, since numerous studies show that the sun is at a 1000 year peak. not only this one. And no scientist has denied this; however, the recent spike in temperatures (since the 70's) cannot be explained by increased solar activity since the sun has grown only 0.05% each decade since the 70's, which is considered too small to have effected the rise in temperature.

With interim dips. There is also the secondary matter of the solar magnetic field. Plus there are other factors.

This is not either or. Which is the way the debate has been framed. Its not even one choice of many. Its combinations of choices from an enormous field of combinations.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Joliphant, it is you who misunderstand the argument.
There are two discussions that can be had:

First, what has driven historical temperature fluctuations. This is an important discussion because it helps us understand our climactic system, what the forcings are, and how important each is. Nobody questions that solar forcing is important in describing parts of the historical climate record.

However, discussion two, what is driving the current (past 30 years) sharp temperature rise? This is a question you seem to conflate with the previous one. Solar forcing is found, again and again, to not explain the past 30 years. It may be a small part of the rise, but not the major forcing at work. Your own sources consistently disagree with your interpretation on this, see the paper referenced by pjshifty by the authors of your graph through 1985.

The better we understand historical variation, the better we are able to rule out explanations of the past 30 years. And that is exactly what has happened with the sun.

This is why we can say these two things without contradiction. The sun is important for the climate, and the sun is not causing (current) global warming.

-jb

I just don't find it at all convincing. Watching the AGW people rush to the defense is much like what watching ancient astronomers add epicycles must have been like.

Perhaps PJ's proper name is Ptolemeicus J Shifty.

But
Lets go through it.

1. Increasing CO2 has been causing a gradual temperature increase since industrialization.
2. As the CO2 level increases we can expect temperature levels in the world to increase.
3. 1938 was until some adjustments to the data the hottest year on record.
4. The 30's are still the hottest decade on record. Barring adjustments made to lower their temperature
5. The North American Continent which has the best Continuous temperature record, has shown no discernible trend in the 20th century.

So we have 70 years of massive industrialization and population growth and we are still just able to match the 1930's a time of economic depression.

Second the 30's were prior to the great CO2 rise why was their temperature so warm so fast ?

See 2 can play this game. If you take the slices of data you like you can prove anything which is why I reject PJ's argument. When he wants to he uses the 120 year data set, the 140 years set , or arbitrary subsets.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Skepticism is the most healthy attitude a scientist can have. However, the healthiness of your own skepticism hides the fact that it is strengthened by poor data, and sources which disagree with your own conclusions.

Both the author of the article originally cited here AND the author of the 1985 graph AGREE that CO2 is causing current global warming! Let me repeat, both sources you have cited in the discussion here disagree with you! If you wish to use their figures you should have the respect to include their conclusions.

And again, in the above post you conflate explanations of previous temperature variation with that of the current global warming. The explanations are not the same! But, shouldn't the simplest thing be to ascribe current changes to what caused changes in the past? Absolutely, and the simple answer does not work. As we better and better understand the past, we are better and better able to rule out things like solar variation as the cause of current warming.

1938 was a hot year, it was not due to anthropogenic CO2. 2007 is a hotter year than 1938, it is very likely due to anthropogenic C02. Both of these statements can, and are, the correct interpretation of the data. More symbolically,

CO2 not cause of 1938 =/=> CO2 not cause of 2007

-jb

You have provided no evidence to support this position.

If the mechanisms governing temperature in the 30's are different than today just what caused the change ?

If you have warming occurring without CO2 Buildup and cooling occurring despite it, this suggests that there are other factors at work.When people retrofit explanations on to the facts it suggests a lack of understanding of the processes at work.

So when you assert CO2 is not the cause of the 1938 warming but is the cause 2007 you need to show what caused the earlier warming and that its not at work now.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It is my understanding that there is not a consensus about how to completely attribute the 1930s warming.

But doesn't that shoot the whole argument to pieces?

No, and this is why. Down the line, for each model, and each possible attribution of forcings that recreate the pre-30s temperature rise, the forcings in that model other than GHGs, cannot explain the temperature rise post 1970.

This is how there can be a consensus without unanimity on every point.

To clarify, there are several different attributions of forcings that accurately replicate the pre-30s temperature rise. All of them lead to a primary attribution of the post 1970 temperature rise to anthropogenic GHGs.

When people have already made up their mind, they will attempt to jump on any uncertainty and conclude inaccuracy. This would be incorrect in this case. In addition to showing that there is more to learn about the climate, this also shows that the prediction of CO2 being responsible for current warming is ROBUST to different model parameters. Robustness to parameter change is the holy grail for any modeler, and strengthens the prediction.

There is a reason your own sources disagree with your conclusions...

-jb

Its pretty obvious you have made up your mind and are out to defend the edifice of AGW. Hence you make logical leaps that are unsupported.

You are asserting a different climate model is required for the 1930's than the 1980's without producing a causation for it. Further the historical record, both short term and geological contradicts your argument.

On The geological scale warming precedes CO2 increases, on the short term there is virtually no correlation between CO2 rise and warming.,

As others have said here correlation does not equal causation but causation usually creates correlation. Where is your correlation ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Let me clarify. I do NOT assert a different model is required for 1930 and 1980.

What I said was, there are different models that accurately reproduce the 1930s temperature increase. All of these models, when evolved forward in time, find GHGs to be responsible for current warming. The same models that predict 1930s warming, predict GHGs to be the cause of current warming.

That is the robustness of the prediction I was talking about. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, the geological time scale of warming is interesting, but not the basis for believing that GHGs are causing current warming. There has been no historical precedent for the sudden release of this much CO2 into the atmosphere. And the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and does provide a positive forcing on temperatures. That is simply physics.

As far as making up my mind, I try to make it up based on the available evidence. I work in the sciences, and have some familiarity with the techniques used in this field. Right now it is simply true that it is very likely we are causing global warming. This does not equal a blind belief in the evil of modern life, or a necessity of crippling carbon taxes and the like. If that is your objection to "global warming", have that discussion, its a good one to have!

-jb

Show a model that accurately predicted the temperature increase in the the 30's and tracks forward to today.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

One example is far too few, I do want to illustrate the robustness of this prediction after all.

This graph shows a collection of models, represented by the grey band, compared to the data in red. As you can see the models do quite well at predicting both the 30s temp increase and the current increase when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included.

This link and the following pages lists and describes the various models being used. Those details are far beyond the scope of what would fit in this sort of comment box.

The conclusion, which can be seen by inspection of the first link, is that the models are successful at predicting both the 30s and current warmings, and ascribe current warming to anthropogenic factors.

-jb

The error bars are .3 degree and the total increase is .6 There is an error gap of .4 degrees in the 50's and 60's and it is now predicting that we are cooler than we are.

I also note that there were no forward looking predictions to any of these. The graphs end in 2000, and they were published in 2001.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The error bars are .3 degree and the total increase is .6 There is an error gap of .4 degrees in the 50's and 60's and it is now predicting that we are cooler than we are.

I also note that there were no forward looking predictions to any of these. The graphs end in 2000, and they were published in 2001.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

This is a collection of over 10 models, some error bar is to be expected. The important things to note, qualitatively all models predict warming through the 30s, and all models predict the current warming, and all models attribute current warming to anthropogenic causes.

The question is qualitative, and the robust answer from multiple models is, yes, current warming is anthropogenic.

These models are state of the art 2001, not 2007. As I am not a climatologist I let the first working group do the aggregation for me, in about 1-2 months you will see the state of the art 2007 version of this.

The important thing to take away is the following, qualitative statements of high probability can be made without arbitrarily good quantitative predictions. Your skepticism seems to center on the fact that any difference exists between the models and measurements. Even given these differences, you can make qualitative statements, such as the one "anthropogenic forcings are the cause of current warming", with a great deal of certainty (>90%).

-jb

I have seen model after model on this. If you search my blog you will find a good selection of links. The problem is that models that actually make predictions and then are checked against the predictions later tend to be wrong. The other choice is that they make inaccurate postdictions.

What you are presenting is an exercise in curve fitting. To be fair they have shown a measure of honesty, in that their error is there. The problem is you can improve the fit by selection of the models to be included.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Yes the discussion of how to deal with climate change is a good one. Mostly because it happens with or without our actions. We can't have that discussion without accurate and precise understanding of the climate. AGW is no longer a scientific matter its a political one.

This may or may not be directed at you, but most and by far and a away the vast majority of AGW proponents react with a reflexive defensive when someone challenges any part of their belief structure.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

How to respond to AGW is a political question. And political disagreement over what or if we should do anything, are transferred into an inherently non-political discussion of whether we are causing warming or not. The resolution of that question may have political repercussions, but in itself it is simply a search for objective truth.

Either we are, or aren't, causing global warming, there's no politics to that.

This political argument over the attribution of cause is simply a proxy for the real discussion we should have about our response to the facts as we discover them. Don't have this anti-AGW discussion for the wrong reasons, frankly the science is not on the side of denial. However, I don't think that the proper policy is shutting down the economy. That is what people care about, just be direct and choose the argument you will win.

-jb

Sadly this is hardwired into us. Its not whether we are causing global warming or not, but what our contribution is and what we can do stop it or if we should.

Look we are talking about .6 degrees in 140 years. Take out whatever you feel is a reasonable percentage for natural causes ? 20% 30% 40% 50% ? it is doubtful we will agree so pick a number that feels right to you.

Subtract this from the .6 degrees. You have what in how many years ?

Thats the truth to this. Even if you attribute the warming to man there is just not that much of it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Please Joli,

its the last 30 years. The earth has warmed by about .6 degrees Celsius in the past 30 years alone.

Saying it has warmed by .6 in the past 140 is similar to me showing a graph of global temps from 65 million years ago until now, and saying the earth has warmed by 1 degree in 65 million years, ignoring all its fluctuations since then. It is just as misleading.

Why is this disturbing if its only 50% anthropogenic (the lowest prediction consistent with the data)? Because, if we continue on this course, we extrapolate out to 2+ degrees of warming by the end of the century. And that has impacts. What exactly they are is a difficult question, but also being studied.

Natural causes are empirically cyclical, we care about anthropogenic CO2 because its not cyclical, its monotonic (strictly increasing). And its time scale, which is fast.

-jb

Thats not my claim. Thats the claim behind the entire AGW position. That since industrialization the use of fossil fuels have dumped CO2 into the atmosphere. The period commonly used is either 1880 to present or 1860 to present.

By the same token from 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled .6 degrees while CO2 rose.

Or from 1880 to 1930 it rose .6 degrees.

Pick your data and you can make whatever argument you like.

1860 to 1880 it dropped about .2 (don't hold me on that as exact)

We have been in a warming trend since the end of the little Ice Age. So far its been a good thing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We choose 1860ish to now because thats what we have direct data for, it has nothing to do with the onset of industrialization. In fact, almost all CO2 release to date has been since 1945.

So, I choose that entire period, and state correctly, all the models that accurately reproduce it show that anthropogenic GHGs have caused current warming.

-jb

http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html

And here we get a lovely amount of agreement in the models

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/uncertainties_in_model_pre...

Thats just off the top of google

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Have you looked outside? How about turning on the weather channel? How about a nice picture?

Pliny hates when I post that map, but it shows the year to date temperature anomally for the US. Our average temperature for the year is more than 13 degrees below average in most of the country with NONE of the country even close to above normal. And that's the temp below AVERAGE, not the temps below record high. I realize that the map is only of the US not the whole globe, but to be the warmest on record, the rest of the world would have to be FAR above average. Sorry I don't buy that one.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Your graph shows deviation from normal of maximum temperatures for the first 3 months of this year in the continental US. It does not show average temperatures, which is the number in question. In addition the continental US makes up about 1.5% of the global surface area.

Summing up, you have shown the incorrect data set, which, even if correct, would be weighted as .375% of the total when averaging to find a mean annual global temperature. This spring-winter in the US has been colder than normal, and this year in the world will be hotter than normal.

-jb

The graph shows temperature relative to annual average, so for the first part of the year, just measures seasonal coldness. If you want to see a proper measure of temperatures versus the average for the relevant month, this NOAA site is the place to look. It's showing March 2007 in the US at the moment, which was very warm. You can interactively bring up other months. Jan was cold in the west but (averaged for the whole month) warm in the East. February was colder in the east, a bit above normal in the west.

After a closer look at the graph, it is completely incorrect. That graph is comparing the currently recorded maximum temperatures to the maximum temperature expected for the entire year. Shockingly, given its the winter-spring, we have not had our maximum yearly temperatures yet. For a legitimate look at the Tmax anomaly across the US for the first 3 months see these links to January, February, March.

A bit different. You should try to apply that skepticism you seem to have for GW to ridiculous looking data sets as well.

-jb

(Alternatively threaded for space considerations)

If you have seen model after model you have seen the following. All the best models, measured by their ability to match the past 100 or so years of temperature data, find that the primary source of current (past 30 years) warming is anthropogenic GHGs. I've provided you a list of over 10 such models, there are more. There is no such model that can come anywhere near their accuracy while discounting anthropogenic effects.

When I put that 2 and 2 together, I get 4. If you insist on getting NaN there's no more to say, you simply have decided that the world if completely unknowable. Yet, I am sure you feel confident that it's going to get cold in the latter part of this year, but don't know exactly what day it will go below 40 degrees. Or feel sure that your car will make it to work tomorrow, though you don't know exactly how many miles it will go. Or feel sure your food won't be spoiled, though you can't predict the temperature fluctuations of your refrigerator.

Uncertainty can be dealt with, quantitatively even. Understanding can be had even when uncertainty exists. This is one of those cases, I've presented the basic evidence. All the best models (by fitting the past 100 years) show the anthropogenic GHGs cause current global warming. There is a first principles physical reasoning to expect CO2 to cause global warming. Alternative primary sources fail to explain current warming (see the sun) both by physical first principles and by modeling techniques.

The weight of evidence is there, you have the choice to ignore it if you want, but that doesn't make it not exist.

-jb

Miami in the 50's just doesn't happen often in April.

But on the subject of models here is the IPCC's

http://climatechange.unep.net/jcm/

Not such a great match.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Joli-

I'll let this be the summary, it's been fun discussing. I hope you will think a little more about the robustness I was talking about with respect to the models, and how uncertainty does not mean we cannot make accurate qualitative and statistical quantitative predictions.

I'd urge you, since you do seem to have a hobby of AGW debunking, to go ahead and work your way through the Working Group 1's portion of the IPCC report, "The Scientific Basis". The new one is about to come out (summary here, full report in a month or two). I'd also suggest, if you do continue using scientist's sources, that you have the respect for them to include their conclusions on AGW. In this discussion every source you use disagrees with your contention that humans do not cause current GW. Perhaps even showing a small bit of humility that they might understand the data better than you do.

-jb

P.s. Your linked model site is a good resource. However, contrary to your statement, its modeling of the last 150 years of temperatures is quite good, and it attributes recent warming to GHGs... But, don't take my word for it, look at it yourself!

If you can look at a model thats way off over 50% of its range and pronounce it very good, I'd hate to ask what you call a bad model.

Let me ask you this, can you find the three data presentation tricks they used to lie in the model ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Period Grow @.05%
1
1 1.0005
2 1.00100025
3 1.00150075
4 1.002001501
5 1.002502501
6 1.003003753
7 1.003505254
8 1.004007007
9 1.004509011
10 1.005011265
11 1.005513771
12 1.006016528
13 1.006519536
14 1.007022796
15 1.007526307
16 1.00803007
17 1.008534085
18 1.009038352
19 1.009542871
20 1.010047643
21 1.010552667
22 1.011057943
23 1.011563472
24 1.012069254
25 1.012575288
26 1.013081576
27 1.013588117
28 1.014094911
29 1.014601958
30 1.015109259

So at year 30 the sun would be putting out 1.5% more than it did in year 1. Since we virtually all our heat from the sun, a 1.5% increase is hardly negligible.

it was 0.05% per decade. So 1.5% in 300 years.

Can't be taken seriously. To do so is to do so at your own peril.

The time period in question for agw is 140 years which gives what at the current time ? 1.0 %

But you knew this and chose a cheap shot.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The power of compound interest, er, warming.

Thanks, J.

Again, conflating long term, with current warming. This post stemmed from a question of whether the sun could cause the past 30 years of warming.

It can't.

-jb

NT
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Compound .05% 3 times and see what kind of temperature increase you get. Don't take my word for it!

-jb

or 14 times the trend is longer than that.

The argument is aerosols were suppressing temperature, subtract that factor and what do you get ?

There is no measurement of cloudcover or changes in the earths albedo pre satellite observation I can't even begin to factor that in neither can you.

I will say again this is a false dichotomy you are trying to generate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We've been through this before. The 0.05% is from Willson's study. Here's the quote:

Solar radiation will not displace the dominant role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in global warming, but could be a significant contributing factor, according to the new report by Richard C. Willson, senior research scientist at Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research, in the Sept. 26 issue of the magazine Science.

Greenhouse warming, in which gases created by human activity trap more solar heat in the atmosphere, is expected to increase temperatures on Earth by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50 to 100 years. By contrast, according to Willson, solar forcing—the sun's effect on long-term climate—might account for between 0.7 and 1.4 degrees of warming over the next 100 years, if sustained at the pace his observations suggest. The globe has already warmed by about one degree since 1880, scientists say.

"Solar forcing would provide only about one-fourth as much warming, if the solar trend persists over the same period," Willson said. "Solar forcing could be significant, but not dominant."

As I despise repetition please follow the link back. All responses still stand.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Here is sit looking out the window as I type. It is Wednesday April 11th 2007. It started snowing yesterday in the early morning before I woke up at 4:30 AM. It has not stopped snowing since.

The weather forecast said the snow was suppose to stop yesterday afternoon. Then they change it to last night. When I got up this morning, the weather forecast said it was going to stop by noon today. They just changed the forecast again. It is now suppose to stop snowing sometime this early evening.

It is April 11th for goodness sakes!

I live in the north east South Dakota, but I blame Global Warming.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

I also notice that the national news is totally unaware of this weather system. If it was a hurricane or heat wave, it would be covered wall to wall.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

spray the way to lovely spring weather nationwide. :>)

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service